COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMIISSION ON THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRIES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION - (AN ILLUSTRATIVE NUCLEAR PROGRAMME ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 40 OF THE EURATOM TREATY)
Date: 1996-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EAEC Treaty, energy policy, nuclear industry, nuclear safety, security of supply

COMMISSION  OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  25.09.1996 
COM(96)  339  final 

COMMUNICATION  FROM THE COMMISSION 

ON 
'WÊ^Ê^UÊIIÊKÊ^ÊÊfaas m  THE EUROPEAN UNION 

(AN ILLUSTRATIVE NUCLEAR PROGRAMME 
ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 40 
OF THE EURATOM TREATY) 

I. 

1. 
2. 
3. 

II. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

III 

IV 

1. 
2. 

V 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Illustrative  Nuclear  Programme for the Community  (PINC) 
The White  Paper  : An energy  policy for the European  Union 
The  role of nuclear  energy  in the  Community  and Worldwide 

THE NUCLEAR  OPTION  IN THE FRAMEWORK  OF 
AN ENERGY  POLICY  FOR THE COMMUNITY 

Global  Competitiveness 
a. 
b. 

Production  costs for nuclear-generated  electricity 
Competitiveness  of nuclear energy  as compared 
to  other energy  source 
Exports 
Long term lasting investments 
Qualified  indigenous  employment 
Innovation  and technological  development 

c. 
d. 
e. 
f. 
Security  of supply 
a. 
.  Growing  world energy demand 
b. 
Peculiarities  of nuclear fuels 
c. 
d. 
Non proliferation  and nuclear  safeguards 
Protection  of the  population  and the environment 
a. 

Emerging  energy trends  in the  European  Community 

Basic safety standards for  radiation  protection 
and  human  health protection 
Reduction  of C02 and other  harmful emissions 
Environmental  impact assessment  and 
emergency  preparedness 
Radioactive  waste management 
Technological  issues of nuclear safety 

b. 
c. 

d. 
e. 

SAFETY  PROBLEMS  IN THE COUNTRIES  OF 
CENTRAL AND EASTERN  EUROPE AND IN THE CIS 

THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION  IN RELATION  TO 
ARTICLE 40 OF THE EURATOM TREATY 

Actions to facilitate  nuclear  investments 
Review of developments  in the  nuclear field 

THE EUROPEAN  NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY  : 
MAIN FEATURES  AND CHALLENGES 

Nuclear  industry  activities and business  opportunities 
Nuclear fuel supply  conditions 
Technological  challenges  of nuclear safety 
Spent fuel,  nuclear waste and decommissioning 
Transport  of  radioactive  materials 
Use of plutonium 
Future  nuclear technology,  research and development 

VI 

CONCLUSION 

ANNEX 

/\*L 

1 
2 
3 

4 

5 
5 

6 
7 
8 
8 
8 
9 
9 
10 
11 
11 
12 

13 
13 

14 
15 
15 

16 

17 

17 
17 

18 

18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
22 
23 

25 

27 

INTRODUCTION 

1. 

The  Illustrative  Nuclear  Programme for the Community  (PINC) 

Title Two of the Euratom Treaty is entitled "Provisions for the encouragement 
of progress  in the field of  nuclear  energy".  Chapter  IV of  this Title  concerns 
"Investment",  and Article 40 of this Chapter  reads as follows : 

"In  order  to  stimulate  action  by  persons  and  undertakings  and  to 
facilitate coordinated development of their investment in the nuclear field, 
the  Commission  shall  periodically  publish  illustrative  programmes 
indicating  in  particular  nuclear  energy  production  targets  and  all the 
types of investment required for their attainment. 

The Commission shall obtain the opinion of the Economic and Social 
Committee on such programmes before their publication. " 

Since the Treaty was adopted, three  illustrative programmes  and one update 
have been published by the Commission respectively in 1966,1972,1984 and 
19901. 

In 1990 the Commission considered that the guidelines presented in the 1984 
PINC2 were  mostly  still  valid,  both as  regards  the  nuclear-power  production 
objectives for the Community, and the  implications for all parties concerned : 
public authorities, electricity producers  and nuclear  industries. 

The  Commission  also  considered that  all the  interrelated  aspects  of  nuclear 
power were covered by the overall energy policy. Thé 1984 PINC was one of 
the elements taken into account by the Council, when in 1986 it established the 
energy objectives for  19953. 

It is the view of the Commission that it is now again appropriate to consider the 
main  issues  concerning  nuclear  energy,  as  foreseen  by  Article  40  of  the 

i 

"The nuclear power  station  design  and construction  industry  and completion  of the 
European  single  market.  Update  of  the  Illustrative  Nuclear  Programme  for  the 
Community  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  1984%  COM(89)  347  final  of 
7 February  1990 

"Illustrative  Nuclear  Programme  under  Article  40  of  the  Euratom  Treaty  1984" 
COM(85) 401  final  of 23 July  1985, together with the opinion  of the Economic and 
Social  Committee of 30 May  1985, ESC 472/85 

3 

Council Resolution of  16 September 1986 concerning new Community energy policy 
objectives  for  1995  and  the  convergence  of  Member  States  policies  (ref.  OJ 86/C 
241/01  of 25.09.1986) 

Al 

Euratom  Treaty, while keeping clearly  in mind the constraints placed by that 
Article and by the Euratom Treaty  as a whole. 

Since  the  last  PINC  was  adopted  in  1984,  the  energy  situation  in  the 
Community has changed and the energy market organisation is moving steadily 
towards  liberalisation.  Our  knowledge  of  the  environmental  issues  linked  to 
energy use has advanced and we are now much more aware of the seriouness 
of climate  change  and the  need for  a global  reduction  in greenhouse  gases 
emissions. The growing awareness of the crucial nuclear safety issues related 
to nuclear power plants in the Central and Eastern European Countries and the 
CIS, as well as the significant  political changes in these countries which lead 
to  a  reinforced  policy  of  disarmament,  are  also  relevant  factors.  All  these 
developments  are affecting the future development  of nuclear  energy. 

The Commission's intention with the 1996 PINC is to provide an overview of the 
situation in the European Union as regards nuclear energy and to indicate the 
importance it attaches to the nuclear issue. The 1996 PINC was announced in 
the  recently  published  Commission  White  Paper  "An  Energy  policy  for  the 
European Union"4, and its content is placed within the framework of a common 
energy strategy,  as presented in the White  Paper. 

As  was  clearly  underlined  in  the  White  Paper,  the  Community  is  moving 
towards  an  integrated, liberalised, and more competitive  energy  market. The 
present Nuclear Illustrative Programme therefore takes a more market oriented 
approach than the previous ones. It also underlines the major challenges faced 
by the  industry  and addresses the main concerns voiced by public opinion. 

Clearly, the nuclear issue is a highly controversial one in the Union, with many 
different  views  being  expressed,  in  a  context  where  Member  States  have 
different  energy  structures  and  different  approaches  to  nuclear  energy.  The 
Commission believes that it is, nonetheless, important to update its views and 
promote the greatest  degree of transparency  possible on this issue. 

The White  Paper  : An energy  policy for the  European  Union 

In its White Paper "An energy policy for the European Union", the Commission 
identifies 
:  overall 
competitiveness;  security of supply; environmental protection. 

three  relevant  objectives 

the  field  of  energy 

for 

As the Commission notes : 

"In pursuing  these  aims  the  Community cannot  be  unaware  that its 
forecast energy dependence will increase and  that  the choices to be 
made  as  regards  protection  of  the  environment  in  particular  may 
heighten  that  dependence.  Nor  may  it  disregard  the  fact  that  the 

COM(95) 682 of  13.12.1995 

integration of the  Community involves greater  solidarity in  the energy 
choices made  by each  of the  Member  States." 

It is within this broader framework addressing global energy  policy issues that 
future nuclear energy developments  in the Community  have to be addressed, 
while preserving the spirit of the relevant provisions of the Euratom Treaty. The 
aim  of a  policy  providing a framework for  the  development  of nuclear  energy 
is  to  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the  three  energy  policy  objectives 
mentioned in the White Paper. The future of nuclear energy in the Community 
will  depend  to  a  large  extent  on  its  acceptability  by  society  and  by  political 
leaders.  The  White  Paper  analyses  the  situation  as follows : 

"This acceptability problem derives particularly from concerns on nuclear 
safety, on transport and disposal of nuclear waste and on nuclear non-
proliferation.  The 
the  external 
competitiveness  of  the  nuclear  industry  and  the  integration  of  the 
electricity market in several  Member  States  underline the role nuclear 
energy plays in electricity generation. 

imperative  of  diversification, 

However,  the  reality is that  a  number  of  Member  States  depend  to a 
large  extent  on  nuclear  energy,  whilst others prefer  to pursue  a  non-
nuclear  energy  policy,  and  a  third  group  have  decided  to  reduce 
dependency  on  nuclear-based  sources  of  energy  or  to  terminate  the 
existing nuclear-plants  altogether. 

The European institutions have responsibilities under the Euratom Treaty 
which  permit the development of nuclear energy in conformity with  the 
rules  and  policies  at  national  level.  The  choice  between  energy 
technologies  or  fuels  is  always  a  matter  where  policy appreciation 
intervenes but nuclear should remain part of this choice. " 

The arguments developed in the White Paper are setting the scene for this new 
Nuclear Illustrative Programme. Its aim is to contribute to a reassessment of the 
various features  of nuclear  energy,  in the  European  Union,  as they  are  today 
and as they may develop in the future.  Certain  basic principles at  Community 
level will be  suggested  as a  conclusion to this  paper. 

Given  that  the  development  of  nuclear  energy  has  an  important  industrial 
dimension, at the level of electricity generation as well as the entire fuel cycle, 
the nuclear industry has an important responsibility to meet the challenges it will 
be  faced  with  in  the  coming  years.  These  challenges  are  described  in  this 
paper. 

The  role of nuclear  energy  in the  Community  and  Worldwide 

Today, the European Union has a mature nuclear industry covering the entirety 
of the fuel cycle, with its own technological  base. 

More  than  140  nuclear  reactors  are  operating  in  Belgium,  Germany,  Spain, 
France, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, making the 
Union the world's  leading producer of nuclear  generated  electricity. 

Nuclear  power  plants  provide  for  approximately  one  third  of  the  electricity 
generated in the European Community. The operational experience built up by 
the nuclear industry in Western Europe is at least equivalent, if not greater than 
that of the  United States, Japan and other  major  industrial countries. 

Large countries in Asia (China, India, South Korea) and in Central and Eastern 
Europe as well as in the CIS have chosen to  include nuclear  power  amongst 
the  means  to  meet  their  energy  needs.  Other  Asian  countries  such  as 
Indonesia, Thailand, Pakistan and Turkey have signalled their intention to also 
include nuclear  power  in their energy plans. 

However,  the  USA has not granted a licence for  building  new nuclear  power 
plants since 1974, although a significant number of plants are in operation and 
research  activity  is  continuing.  In  Latin  America,  while  countries  such  as 
Argentina  and  Brazil  are  encouraging  the  development  of  nuclear  power 
generation, others have chosen not to follow  a nuclear  energy option. 

II. 

THE  NUCLEAR  OPTION  IN THE  FRAMEWORK  OF AN  ENERGY  POLICY 
FOR THE COMMUNITY 

Any decisions made on nuclear energy at Community  level need to be placed in the 
context of the overall energy policy decisions. The Community's responsibilities under 
the Euratom Treaty include the definition of common energy policy guidelines. Energy 
policy  objectives  in  the  context  of  the  Union  Treaty,  have  been  discussed  in  the 
Commission's White Paper on energy policy. Policy decisions with regard to nuclear 
energy will need to be taken within the frameworks outlined in both the PINC and the 
White Paper.taking into account the industrial challenges identified. The fact that the 
acceptance  of nuclear  energy  by public opinion differs from  one  country  to  another 
needs to be kept clearly  in mind. It is also clear that absolute  priority must  be given 
to the safety of nuclear  power. 

As  indicated  in  the  White  Paper,  any  Community  energy  policy  should,  at  least, 
contribute to the achievement of the three fundamental objectives of : 

overall economic competitiveness; 

security  of supply; 

environmental protection. 

Nuclear energy will have to be judged according to these aims and the contribution it 
can make to the achievement  of these energy policy objectives. 

1. 

Global  Competitiveness 

a. 

Production costs for nuclear-generated electricity 

According  to  a  joint  OECD  /  IEA  study  published  in  19935,  the 
breakdown in the total cost of nuclear-generated electricity production is 
as follows, assuming a 5 % average discount rate : initial investment 45 
-  55  %,  operation  and  maintenance  20  -  25  %,  fuel 20  -  25  %.  If  an 
average discount rate of  10 % is taken, then the initial investment cost 
is 58 - 70 %, operation and maintenance  15-20  % and fuel 12-20 %. 

For recently designed water-cooled reactors (the most widely used type 
in the Western world), the total cost of electricity production is estimated 
to be (at 1991 prices) 22 - 30 Ecus/1000 kWh assuming a 5 % discount 
rate, and  33 - 41 Ecus/1000 kWh assuming a  10 % discount rate. 

Costs  are  higher  for  older  water  cooled  reactors,  for  other  types  of 
reactors (for example gas-cooled reactors)  or for  Light Water  Reactors 
which do not benefit from the lower costs of standardisation or of mass 
production.  The  investment  cost  for  one  such  nuclear  power  station 
could be double the cost of a single nuclear power station which is part 
of a series. 

Investment costs cover the basic construction costs, engineering costs, 
contingencies,  decomissioning  costs  and  long  term  decommissioning 
waste management costs. 

Safety  authorities  in all the Member  states using nuclear  power oblige 
electricity  generators 
for 
decomissioning  and  waste  disposal,  with  the  level  of  funds  deemed 
appropriate  by each Member State. 

to  create  a 

financial 

reserve 

fund 

Decommissioning costs 

Decomissioning costs vary according to the characteristics of the nuclear 
power  station.  Despite  a certain  degree  of  uncertainty  involved  in the 
estimates,  current  indications  are  that  decomissioning  represents  a 
relatively  low  percentage  of  the  total  investment  cost.  It  is  currently 
estimated that  the decomissioning  cost for  a  1000 MWe water  cooled 
reactor  represents  10  -  15  %  of  the  total  initial  investment  cost  at 
constant prices, but it could be higher for other types of reactors. This 
percentage decreases after discounting (1.4 - 3.7 % for a 5 % discount 
rate, 0.2  - 2.1  % for  a 10 % discount rate). 

Entitled  : "Projected  costs of generating  electricity-update  1992" 
Results  of this type  of  OECD  study  are based  on  replies  to  questionnaires  given by 
Member  States who have nuclear  power stations. 

Fuel costs 

Fuel  costs  vary  depending  on  the  type  of  reactor,  and  on  the  option 
chosen  for  the  fuel  cycle.  For  a  cycle  with  reprocessing  the  total fuel 
costs (1991  prices)  is estimated at 4,6  Ecus/1000 kWh; for a cycle with 
a  single  use of fuel,  the total cost  is estimated  at 4,1  Ecus/1000 kWh. 

Waste,  Transport  and  Disposal 

According to a 1994 OECD report6 for a fuel cycle with reprocessing, the 
cost for reprocessing, vitrification and waste disposal corresponds to 27 
%  of the fuel cost, while transport costs correspond to  1.5  - 2  %.  For a 
single-use fuel cycle, transport and storage of irradiated fuel represents 
approximately  10  %  of  fuel  cost,  while  coating  and  disposal  of  the 
irradiated fuel represents  about  5  %  of the cost. 

Storage  costs 

A  previous  1990  report7  noted  costs  varying  between  400  and  1,300 
ECU  /  m3  for  storage  of  low  level  irradiated  waste,  and  approximate 
discounted  investment  costs  of  100,000  ECU  /  m3  for  high  level 
irradiated waste storage. 

Clearly,  cost estimates  are  affected  by the  assumptions  on which they 
are  based  and carry a  degree  of uncertainty,  in particular  as  concerns 
waste treatment and storage. However,  as indicated by the cited OECD 
cost estimates, even a significant variation in the cost of waste transport 
or  storage  will  only  have  a  small  effect  on  the  total  cost  of  nuclear-
generated electricity, since the nuclear fuel cost only represents 20 - 25 
%  of the total cost. 

b. 

Competitiveness of nuclear energy as compared to other energy source 

Industrial competitiveness refers to the production cost of the electricity 
generated (in kWh). This cost is the main factor in determining the price 
at  which  nuclear  electricity  is supplied  to  consumers,  including  heavy 
industries which are  its main  individual consumers. 

The  previously mentioned joint study of the  OECD  and of the  IEA from 
1993  compares  the  projections  of  costs  of  the  various  sources  of 
electricity  production  on  the  basis  of  data  provided  by  the  Member 
States,  using  the  method  of  the  levelized  average  cost.  This  study 

6  The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel  Cycle NEA /  OECD -  1994 

7  Report  EUR  12871  "Evaluation  of  Storage  and  disposal  costs  for  conditioned 

radioactive waste in several European countries" 

shows that, on the basis of an average discounted costs at the rate of 
5% a year,  nuclear  power  appears to be the most economic option in 
thirteen of the fifteen  countries examined (the exceptions being the UK 
and  NL).  For  a  rate  of  10%,  five  countries  keep  a  real  economic 
advantage  to  use  nuclear  power;  five  others  preserve  the  choice 
between nuclear power and natural gas. These conclusions rely on the 
implicit  hypothesis  of  price  stability  for  the  fuels,  by  no  means 
guaranteed owing to the increasing demand for natural gas. They also 
include  costs  of decommissioning  and waste  disposal.  It  is  envisaged 
that this study will be updated in 1997. 

Another  study  of  the  OECD  published  in  1992  examines  the  overall 
economic impact of the use of nuclear energy. The economic  analysis 
conducted  for  the  countries  having  opted  for  nuclear  energy  shows 
clearly beneficial effects on the balance of payments due to the savings 
made  on  energy  imports.  Of  course,  the  economic  attractiveness  of 
nuclear generated electricity depends on a wide range of factors and it 
is  therefore  not  surprising that  different  studies  give  rise  to  divergent 
results. 

Developments  towards  the  liberalisation  of  the  Community  internal 
electricity market will mean that nuclear energy will have to compete in 
the same framework and under the same conditions as all other energy 
sources.  A  full  implementation  of  the  internal  market  and  a  rigorous 
application of the relevant state aid and competition rules implies a level 
playing field for all energy sources, with emphasis on cost transparency. 

In terms of raw material costs, whatever the future trends in the price of 
uranium or exchange rates, they are likely to have a rather low impact 
on the competitiveness of the nuclear  industry since the purchase cost 
of the source material currently accounts for considerably less than 10 % 
of the electricity production costs. The remainder of the production cost 
is mainly accounted for by technological and industrial input from within 
the European Union. The Union has the necessary expertise in nuclear 
technology,  and the capability to improve this technology  even further. 

It  should  be  noted  that,  due  to  the  capital  intensity  of  the  nuclear 
industry, its economic attractiveness depends critically -inter alia- on the 
level of interest  rates.  It should also be noted that costs and pricing of 
nuclear generated electricity are likely to be re-evaluated  in the light of 
moves  towards  the  liberalization  of  electricity  markets  and  in  certain 
cases privatisation (for example  in the UK). 

c. 

Exports 

Industrialists and manufacturers  involved in the nuclear fuel cycle or in 
the  construction  of  nuclear  power  stations  make  a  considerable 
contribution  to the  European  Union's  export  earnings.  There  are  also 

growing export opportunities for European business in the large, global 
nuclear waste-treatment and decommissioning markets. 

Export markets are essential for maintaining the technological level and 
know-how  acquired  by  European  industrialists,  in  particular  those 
operating  in fuel  cycle  activities  or  in  equipment  manufacturing.  The 
Commission has negotiated and is negotiating, nuclear agreements with 
third countries, in order to facilitate business and trade in nuclear goods 
and services. 

It should be noted that all nuclear exports from the Union are subject to 
the IAEA rules, as well as the Euratom safeguards regime. 

d. 

Long term lasting investments 

The  nuclear  industry  investments  are  made for the  long term. To be 
realised  they  need  a  long  lead  time  and  a  stable  and  favourable 
regulatory and economic environment.  It takes 5 to 10 years to design 
and  construct  a  nuclear  power  station,  which  is  then  operated  and 
maintained over a period of 40 years or more. The operator needs the 
assurance that fuel and fuel services will be available throughout this 
period and that it will be possible to process the spent fuel and nuclear 
waste in a satisfactory manner. 

In implementing the internal electricity market, Member States may take 
due  consideration  of  the  long  term  planning  needs  of  the  nuclear 
industry and create, accordingly, the conditions for such heavy long term 
investments. 

e. 

Qualified indigenous employment 

More  than  90  %  of  the  cost  of  nuclear  energy  arises  from  services 
provided  by economic  operators  within the  European  Union.  It follows 
that considerable use is made of indigenous labour, whether directly or 
indirectly.  This  level  of  employment  is  generated  or  maintained  by 
investment  in the various branches  of the  industry which contribute to 
nuclear energy production, and by the operation of the plants when built. 

The nuclear industry estimates that it employs more than 400 000 staff 
in Europe In tasks directly linked to electricity generation and fuel cycle 
activities, mostly highly-qualified, making an important contribution to the 
economic, social, industrial, and scientific development of the European 
Union. 

f. 

Innovation and technological development 

It  has been recognized from the beginning  in the  Euratom Treaty that 
the development of nuclear energy would not have been possible without 

in 

terms  of 

major breakthroughs in research and development. The nuclear industry 
has  been  consistently  successful 
innovation  and 
implementation of new technologies. The nuclear research effort needs 
to be continued, \r\  parallel with research  in renewable energy  sources 
and  efforts to increase energy efficiency. Support of the Research and 
Development  Community  Framework  Programmes,  together  with 
national  programmes,  will  contribute  to  the  further  improvement  of 
safety,  to the  effectiveness  of  the  industry  and  to the creation of new 
export markets. 

Security  of supply 

a. 

Emerging energy trends in the European Community 

As  indicated  in White  Paper, future energy supply and demand trends 
are difficult to predict. Different scenarios have been studied, examining 
a  range  of  different  possible  socio-economic  futures  at  the  horizon  of 
20208.  In this study, 

"Some of  the  key  messages emerging  which may  have policy 
implications are as follows : 

Europe  will  significantly  increase  its  dependence  on 
imported energy; 

gas  will compete  with oil  as a leading component of the 
fuel mix; 

European consumers will become increasingly dependent 
on "grid" supplied energy; 

there is considerable flexibility as to the final shape of the 
future  fuel-mix.  The  weight  given  to  climate  change 
concerns, the effect of technology and the liberalisation of 
markets  and  the  fact  that  some  renewables  are  on the 
threshold  of  economic  viability  will  be 
the  major 
determining factors." 

Based on these key messages, nuclear energy can continue to play a 
role  in the future  supply  of  energy  to  the  European  Community.  This 
would be particularly useful if the present satisfactory degree of supply 
diversification deteriorates in the coming years, as some experts expect. 

We must therefore keep trying to save energy, to diversify our resources 
and to maintain a high degree of self-sufficiency.  In spite of their widely 

8  European Energy  to 2020  : A scenario approach. Ref.  : SEC(95) 2283 of 20.12.1995 

9 

differing national policies, the Member States of the Community must act 
together to alleviate energy supply constraints.  Nuclear energy can be 
a way to contribute to that aim. 

6. 

Growing world energy demand 

Since the energy markets are international, there is also a need to look 
at the energy situation world-wide. 

With a near stagnation of energy demand in Europe and a decline in the 
former Soviet Union, it is easy to overlook that energy demand is rising 
very quickly in Asia. Future population growth and development in Third 
World countries will also generate  an  increase  in their  consumption of 
fossil fuels. According to the Commission's scenarios studies mentioned 
above, total world energy demand could grow by around 50 % between 
now and the year 2020. Coordinated efforts to improve energy efficiency, 
promote savings and develop renewable sources of energy would lead 
to a smaller  increase  in world fossil fuel demand for the future. 

When it comes to meeting that demand, world fossil fuel reserves are far 
from  being  inexhaustible.  According  to  the  latest  estimates  from  the 
World Energy Council, on the basis of current consumption, oil reserves 
(75 % of which are controlled by OPEC) may last for just over 40 years, 
natural gas for the about 65 years, coal for over 200 years and uranium 
for  about 25 - 30 years  if no fuel  reprocessing  is carried out  (with fuel 
reprocessing  the  life  time  of  uranium  reserves  is  extended  manifold). 
However, fossil fuel reserves have frequently been underestimated in the 
past because little account was taken of improvements in yield recovery 
techniques. Over the past twenty years, proven fossil fuel reserves have 
been fairly stable and in certain cases even increased, despite high and 
growing consumption volumes, and there has been no reason in recent 
years to  look for  major  new uranium  reserves.  It should also  be noted 
that uranium reserves are widely dispersed in a number of countries. Oil 
prices,  at  their  lowest  level  since  1973,  may  well  rise  in  the  medium 
term. The prices of uranium available on the international market have 
been going down due to supplies from the CIS countries, but the trend 
is reversing. However, if a recycling option for nuclear fuels (plutonium) 
is followed, there will be less need for uranium. 

Having  taken  all  the  factors  into  account,  use  of  nuclear  energy  is 
considered  by  some  of  the  potentially  highest  energy  consuming 
countries  in the world as a way of facing their energy supply problems. 
On the other hand, because of the uncertainties  involved, a number of 
countries  have chosen not to build nuclear  plants and to pursue other 
forms of supply diversification. 

10 

c. 

Peculiarities of nuclear fuels 

The  way  in  which  nuclear  fuels  are  used  differs  from  other  fuels. 
Uranium  is  mined  virtually  only  for  the  purpose  of  energy  production. 
More  importantly,  once  the  waste  products  of its  initial use  have  been 
removed,  uranium  and  its  by-product  plutonium  can  be  recycled  and 
used for further  energy production. 

Since  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  potential  energy  in  uranium  is 
consumed during its first use, it makes sense in the long term to recycle 
it,  and  even  to  do  so  repeatedly,  provided  technological  solutions  are 
found to make  recycling  safe  and economically  viable. 

Nuclear  material (plutonium) obtained from the dismantling of weapons 
may also be recycled as nuclear fuel for power generation. Plutonium in 
all its forms raises issues in the areas of environmental safety and non-
proliferation.  For  recycling,  there  are  still  questions  concerning  its 
economic viability. 

d. 

Non proliferation  and nuclear safeguards 

There  is an  evident  link between  nuclear  trade  and  enhanced  security 
of energy supply, and the non proliferation credentials of a country or a 
group  of  countries.  Non  proliferation  is of  prime  importance,  given the 
possibility of using highly enriched uranium or plutonium of any grade as 
fissile  materials  for  nuclear  weapons.9  The  European  Union  has 
contributed  significantly 
to  the  development  of  non-proliferation 
mechanisms. 

Euratom  is  the  regional  organization  with  the  longest  experience  in 
safeguards and non-proliferation. Its activities are closely connected with 
the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  NPT,  in  particular  as  regards  the 
interrelation between a regional and a global safeguards system, and the 
link  between  regional  and  global  cooperation  for  the  peaceful  use  of 
nuclear  energy. 

Euratom  is  a  prominent  example  of  a  regional  integrated  safeguards 
system  :  it  is  based  on  European  Community  law  and  is  operating 
efficiently  and  effectively.  A  new  partnership  arrangement  has  been 
agreed  in  1992  between  the  Commission  and  the  IAEA  (international 
Atomic  Energy  Agency)  known  as  the  "New  Partnership  Approach", in 
order  to optimise  resources  and to strengthen  safeguards. 

Isotopic separation is needed to enrich uranium to the level  needed for weapons, while 
the  chemical  separation  needed  to  obtain  plutonium  represents  a  lower  barrier  to 
diversion  for  military  purposes. 

11 

The  objective  was  to  strengthen  cooperation  between  the  two 
organizations,  based on the following understanding : 

Euratom is confirmed in its role as a regional system sui generis; 

mutual  support  in  Research  and Technological  Development  is 
regarded as essential; 

support  in logistics will be enhanced; 

common training and equipment procurement will be developed; 

inspection arrangements will be optimized in order to enable the 
IAEA to save  inspection resources; 

each  organization  will  maintain  its  rights  to  draw  independent 
conclusions. 

The  experience  gained  so  far  with  the  implementation  of  this  new 
approach  is judged  as  being positive. 

The  European  Union  supported  fully  the  indefinite  and  unconditional 
extension  of the  Non-Proliferation Treaty  (NPT)  and  the  results  of the 
NPT  Review  and  Extension  Conference  held  in  1995  are  therefore 
considered to have  been  a success. 

It should be noted in this context that the Nuclear Summit of Moscow on 
19-20  April  1996  confirmed  the  commitment  of  the  G7  and  Russia  to 
conclude  a  treaty  on the total  ban  of  nuclear  tests  (CTBT)  which was 
signed  in September  1996. 

It should also be noted that,  since  1992,  all exports of nuclear  material 
from the European Union to third countries which do not possess nuclear 
weapons,  are  subject to the  IAEA's full scope  safeguards. 

The  European  Union is thus a major  player not only  in trade  in nuclear 
materials  and  equipment,  but  also  in  the  important  areas  of  non-
proliferation  and nuclear  safeguards. 

Protection  of the  population and the  environment 

Broadly  speaking, for the first 20 years of the existence  of Euratom there  has 
been  a  consensus  on  the  usefulness  of  nuclear  energy.  This  consensus, 
weakened  after  the  accident  at  Three  Mile  Island  and  partly  broke  down 
following the Chernobyl accident, though the design and safety features of this 
plant cannot be compared with those of nuclear power stations operating in the 
European  Union. It is now internationally  accepted that use of nuclear  energy 

12 

and ensuring its safety are two sides of the same coin. Countries using nuclear 
energy  must put "safety first". 

a. 

Basic  safety  standards  for  radiation  protection  and  human  health 
protection 

Article 2(b) of the Euratom Treaty requires the Community to "establish 
uniform  standards  to  protect  the  health  of workers  and  of  the  general 
public and ensure that they are  applied" as provided  in the Treaty. 

Under article 31  of the Euratom Treaty, basic standards have been laid 
down establishing the fundamental  principle of radiation protection and 
the  maximum  permissible  radiation doses for workers  and the  general 
public. These standards, updated in 1996, form the basic framework for 
radiation  protection throughout  the  European  Union10. 

In addition, the provisions of article  129  of the Treaty  on the  European 
Union state that the Community shall contribute towards ensuring a high 
level of human  health  protection,  and that  health  protection  shall  be  a 
constituent  part  of other  Community policies. 

b. 

Reduction of C02  and  other harmful emissions 

The build-up of C 02  in the atmosphere poses a serious threat, and less 
use will have to be made of coal and other fossil fuels. Although Europe 
uses energy  more efficiently  than the  USA,  China  or Russia,  it can still 
reduce  C 02  and  other  emissions,  by  promoting,  for  example,  energy 
savings and the use of renewable sources of energy. The use of nuclear 
energy  has the advantage  of reducing  C 02  and other  greenhouse  gas 
emissions. It should be noted that, for Europe as a whole, use of nuclear 
energy  is already  avoiding the  emission of some  700  million tonnes of 
C 02  annually, compared to a situation where the same electricity would 
have  been  produced  using a  mix  of fossil fuels11. 

In  addition,  nuclear  power  generation  contributes  to  the  avoidance  of 
other  harmful  atmospheric  emissions  such  as  particulates,  sulphur 
dioxide,  nitrogen oxides  and methane. 

10  Council  Directive  96/29/EURATOM  of  13 May  1996  laying  down the basic  safety 
standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the 
dangers arising from ionizing radiation (OJ LI59 of  29.06.1996) 

11  European Energy to 2020 : A scenario approach. Ref.  : SEC(95) 2283 of 20.12.1995 

13 

Environmental impact assessment and emergency  preparedness 

Specific provisions in the Euratom Treaty also exist (art. 35-37)  in order 
to assess the radiological impact of the release of radioactive  materials 
into the biosphere. Nuclear installations are designed and built to contain 
virtually  all  the  harmful  by-products  of  their  operation,  even  under 
accidental conditions. However, this is not the way in which the general 
public perceives the  inherent  risk of radioactivity  being released  as the 
result  of  the  use  of  nuclear  energy  -either  under  normal  operating 
conditions  or  in the event  of an  accident. 

Industrial nuclear  installations in the European Union are well assessed 
for  their  impact  on  the  environment.  They  must  meet  the  specific 
provisions of the Euratom Treaty and its secondary  legislation, and are 
also  covered  by  the  Council  Directive  on  environmental 
impact 
assessment12  and 
(Convention  on 
Environmental  Impact Assessment  in a  Transboundary  Context). 

the  ESPOO  Convention 

As required by the Community basic standards, emergency programmes 
have been developed in all Member States in order to ensure that public 
authorities will be able to cope  in an appropriate  way with the  possible 
radiological  consequences,  in  case  of  a  nuclear  accident.  These 
programmes are co-implemented  by a Community  system for the rapid 
exchange  of  information  established  on  the  basis  of  a  1987  Council 
Directive13. These programmes provisions will benefit from the common 
approach  of  the  RODOS  system,  which  is  being  developed  as  a 
decision-aiding system for offsite response to nuclear emergencies and 
is being  implemented  in certain  Member  States  and  elsewhere  mainly 
through the  Radiation  Protection  Research  Programme. 

In  the  event  of  a  nuclear  accident  having  off-site  consequences,  it  is 
important  that  the  public  affected  is  sufficiently  informed  about  the 
appropriate behaviour to adopt. A 1989 Council Directive deals with the 
information  of  the  general  public  concerning  the  health  protection 
measures  to  be  applied  and  steps  to  be  taken  in  the  event  of  a 
radiological  emergency14. 

12  Council  Directive  (85/337/EEC)  of  27  June  1985  concerning  the  evaluation  of the 
impact of private and public projects on the environment (OJ LI75  of  05.07.1985) 

13  Council  Directive  87/600/EURATOM  of  14  December  1987  on  Community 
arrangements  for  the  early  exchange  of  information  in  the  event  of  a radiological 
emergency  (OJ L371  of 30/12/87) 

14  Council  Directive (89/618/EURATOM) of 27 November  1989 

14 

Radioactive  waste management 

Radioactive  waste  management  is  an  important  factor  in  safety  and 
environmental protection. Industrial techniques for the management and 
disposal  of  nuclear  wastes  are  being  implemented  and  constantly 
improved. Nevertheless, research needs to be continued in a systematic 
way,  in order to further reduce the volume of waste to be managed and 
to optimise the technologies  used  in waste  management. 

In  1994  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  proposing  a 
"Community strategy for the management of radioactive wastes"15. This 
strategy,  which  is  basically  focussed  on  safety  and  environmental 
protection  concerns,  envisages  a  harmonised  approach  concerning 
radioactive  waste  management  principles  at  Community  level,  where 
practicable,  in order to ensure  an equivalent  level of  safety  throughout 
the  Community.  It represents  a  comprehensive  medium  and  long-term 
programme,  but  concentrates  only  on  those  elements  which  could 
benefit  from  a  common  approach  to  radioactive  waste  at  Community 
level.  These  elements  include  the  definition  and  classification  of 
radioactive waste; waste minimization, transport, treatment and disposal; 
public  information; and financing  of radioactive waste  management. 

There  is a consensus on the approach adopted in this field between the 
Community and the specialised international agencies involved, namely 
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear  Energy 
Agency (NEA) of the OECD. This consensus would be strengthened by 
the  adoption  of  an  international  convention  on  the  management  of 
radioactive waste.  Preparation of a draft text has already  started within 
the framework of the IAEA. The Commission fully supports this ongoing 
process. 

Technological issues of nuclear safety 

In  1975,  the  Council  of  Ministers  adopted  its first  Resolution  on  "The 
technological  problems  of  nuclear  safety"16.  That  Resolution  remains 
important for the promotion of cooperation in the field of nuclear safety. 
Nuclear  technology  issues which  are  directly  related  to  nuclear  safety 
are  not  subject  to  prescriptive  provisions  in the  Euratom  Treaty.  The 
Resolution  set  the  basis  for  a  freely  agreed  cooperation  between 
Community  Member  States  and  the  Commission  on the  technological 
and  industrial  issues  which  are  significant  for  the  safety  of  nuclear 
installations. 
It  calls  for  "the  progressive  harmonisation  of  safety 
requirements  and  criteria  in  order  to  provide  for  an  equivalent  and 

15  COM(94) 66 final  of 02.03.1994. 

16  Council  Resolution  of 22 July  1975 (OJ C185  of  14.08.1975) 

15 

satisfactory  degree  of  protection  of  the  population  and  of  the 
environment against the risk of radiation resulting from nuclear activities 
and to assist the development  of trade". 

On the eve of the target date for the completion of the  Union's  Internal 
Market  (1993),  the  Council  consolidated  the  basis  for  cooperation 
between  Member  States  and  the  Commission  on  the  technological 
problems  of  nuclear  safety  by  adopting  a  further  Resolution  on 
18 June  199217. This Resolution provides guidance on ways of seeking 
consensus throughout the Union on key safety requirements. Consensus 
on  such  requirements  will  be  beneficial  to  any  harmonisation  effort 
related to materials and manufacturing codes and standards, significant 
for the  mechanical integrity of plant components. The  1992  Resolution 
also  calls for  coherence  between  harmonisation  of  safety  criteria  and 
requirements within the European Union, and the Union's programme of 
cooperation with non-Member  States. 

III.  SAFETY PROBLEMS IN THE COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN 

EUROPE AND IN THE CIS 

The Chernobyl accident  in 1986 revealed important deficiencies  in the design, 
construction and operation of reactors and, more generally, in the safety culture 
prevailing in the countries of that region. The  seriousness of the situation was 
underestimated for several years by the authorities at the time. Only in the early 
1990s, following the political changes, did it become apparent that urgent action 
should be taken to improve the oldest reactors and even to make it possible for 
the  operating  countries to close them down. 

Accordingly,  the  G-7  countries  committed  themselves,  at  their  Economic 
Summit in 1992 in Munich, to an action programme which was adopted by the 
G-24  as  the  basis  for  all  technical  assistance  efforts  in the  area  of  nuclear 
safety.  The  European  Union,  for  its  part,  undertook  to  use  the  technical 
assistance  provided  for  under  the  PHARE  programme  for  the  Central  and 
Eastern European countries including the Baltic countries and under the TAC IS 
programme  targeted  at the  CIS  countries. 

Such an  assistance was  developed  mainly  in the following fields : 

support to safety  authorities 
design and operational  assistance 
spare  parts 
waste treatment  and fuel cycle 
early warning  systems 
Chernobyl 

17  Council  Resolution of  18 June  1992 (OJ C172 of  08.07.1992) 

16 

As a primary objective, short term measures are implemented and drawn up to 
remedy  the  most  urgent  deficiencies,  especially  as  regards  the  less  safe 
reactors,  and to  transfer  our  safety  culture.  Longer  term  measures  are  also 
implemented  and drawn up aiming at bringing the reactors, either  existing or 
under construction, as well as other  nuclear  installations to an internationally 
accepted safety level. 

Euratom loans may offer today a way of financing the necessary investments. 

The  implementation  of  such  programmes  presupposes  that  all  Central  and 
Eastern European countries and the CIS take swift action to introduce a nuclear 
civil  liability  system  as  defined  in  the  Paris  and  Vienna  Conventions,  thus 
enabling  the  European  nuclear  industry  to  give  them  its  support  within  a 
satisfactory  legal framework. 

Implementation  of  the  European  Energy  Charter  principles  will  be  realised 
through  the  "Energy  Charter  Treaty",  a  binding  instrument  applicable  to  all 
forms  of energy which was available for  signing from  December  1994 to mid 
June  1995.  At  the  signature  closing  date,  50  countries  and  the  European 
Communities had signed the Treaty, among which all European countries and 
some of the  OECD  countries, with the exception of the  USA and  Canada. A 
Declaration  concerning  peaceful  uses  of  nuclear  energy  is  still  under 
consideration. 

IV. 

THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 40 OF THE 
EURATOM TREATY 

1. 

Actions to facilitate  nuclear  investments 

In general, as stated in Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty, the Commission's role 
is "to stimulate action by persons and undertakings and to facilitate coordinated 
development  of their  investment  in the  nuclear field". Although decisions  are 
taken  by  the  Member  States,  the  Commission  can  facilitate  their  strategic 
choices, thus enabling the European Union to derive the maximum benefit from 
the safe use of nuclear energy. 

Examples  of  actions  undertaken  by  the  Commission  are the  promotion  and 
encouragement of a speedy harmonization of requirements, rules, criteria and 
practices  regarding  the  design,  operation,  maintenance  and  certification  of 
installations. 

2. 

Review of developments  in the nuclear field 

Forty  years  after  the  signature  of  the  Euratom  Treaty,  its  implementation 
requires  the  Commission  to  acknowledge  the fact  that  nuclear  energy  is  an 
industrial, economic and social reality in several highly-developed countries and 
that the nuclear  industry  in Western Europe has reached its mature years. 

17 

The nuclear generation installed capacity in the European Community was of 
120 GWe in 1995. According to the current plans of Member States, it will still 
increase slightly to reach  125 GWe in 2000. 

While no precise plans are available for a later date, the scenarios developed 
by the Commission18 predict a possible range of installed capacity between 118 
and  138  GWe  for  2010,  based  on  certain  long  term  assumptions.  These 
assumptions concern, for example, the future price of energy, the intensity of 
energy efficiency, the political choices to be made by Governments, etc. Under 
these circumstances, the Commission considers that it is not feasible to assign 
quantitative production or investment targets to the nuclear industry beyond the 
year 2000, noting, in addition, that the Union's objective today is to let market 
rules play their rote. 

If, in the future, economic or political pressures modify the present framework, 
a  longer  term  approach  may be  needed again. For  example,  if  new  political 
choices are made in order to combat greenhouse gases emissions, it may as 
a  result  be  envisaged  to  establish  nuclear electricity  production  targets  at a 
more distant horizon. 

In any case, there  is a need to improve cooperation between Member  States 
in the nuclear field and to identify the major challenges that the nuclear industry 
will be faced with in the future. 

The Commission therefore proposes to examine, in the remaining parts of this 
document, the main features of and challenges for the nuclear energy sector 
in  the  years  to  come,  and  to  suggest  certain  principles  to  be  followed  at 
Community  level for the peaceful use of nuclear  energy. 

V. 

THE EUROPEAN NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY : MAIN FEATURES AND 
CHALLENGES 

In the years to come, the world will be faced with increasingly difficult  environmental 
energy-related  problems.  Nuclear  energy  is  one  of  the  means  of  generating  large 
quantities of electricity economically, without depleting the planet's reserves of fossil 
fuels. 

1. 

Nuclear  industry activities and business  opportunities 

At  present,  in  the  European  Community,  the  scope  for  construction  of  new 
nuclear power stations is rather limited. However, investment programmes exist 
for  the  replacement  or  modernisation  and  upgrading  of  operating  plants. 
Research  programmes for the  development  of  a new  generation  of  reactors 
have  also  been  undertaken. These  programmes  will,  in principle,  permit the 

18  European Energy to 2020 : A scenario approach. Ref.  : SEC(95) 2283 of 20.12.1995 

18 

nuclear  industry to further develop  its technological and research base and its 
development  skills and, where possible, to further improve its competitiveness 
and  know-how. 

The  situation  is different  for  some  of  our  competitors.  In Japan  in  particular, 
prospects for new developments exist, and in order to exploit these prospects, 
Japanese firms have formed strong links with North American  industrial firms. 
The  rapid economic development taking place in the  Far  East makes  it also a 
growing  market.  The  European  industry  must  be  ready  to  grasp  every 
opportunity  to  operate  in these  countries.  Fuel  cycle  expertise  developed  by 
European  Union  companies  is  already  being  exploited  in  the  growing  Far 
Eastern markets. Major opportunities also exist in the huge waste management 
and  decommissioning  markets,  especially  in the  USA. 

The European Union has committed itself, in the framework of cooperation with 
third  countries,  to  ensure  that  absolute  priority  is given  to  safety  when  using 
nuclear  energy  ("the  safety first" principle). The  Union has committed  itself in 
particular  to  cooperate  for  the  promotion  of  a  safety  culture  in  all  countries 
which  have  nuclear  reactors;  to  an  increased  international  transparency  in 
nuclear activities; and to the continuation of the reform  in the energy sector in 
countries in transition, on the basis of effective strategies orientated towards an 
opening  to  the  world  and  towards  adoption  of  corresponding  economic  and 
environmental  principles. 

The  industry must also be  in a position to cooperate with Central and  Eastern 
European Countries and the CIS within this framework,  provided the financing 
is  adequate  and  a  civil  liability  system  is  available  in  accordance  with 
international rules. The involvement of the European industry could ensure that 
internationally  accepted  safety standards are respected. There  is also a  need 
for all nuclear  States to participate  in the existing nuclear  liability  conventions 
(the ParisA/ienna Convention) as a means of providing full legal security, both 
to the  nuclear  industry  and to  European citizens. 

Nuclear fuel  supply  conditions 

In the short and medium terms, there is no foreseeable risk of supply disruption 
of uranium or of enrichment services. However,  in recent years the substantial 
increase  of  the  share  of  the  natural  uranium  market  captured  by  the  CIS, 
through prices  at  abnormally  low levels  (well below  market  economy  costs of 
production), has caused serious concerns to the European nuclear fuel industry 
and  has  resulted  in  substantial  reductions  in  uranium  production  in  the 
Community  and  in  the  Community's  traditional  market  economy  supplier 
countries.  Furthermore,  nuclear  material  from  dismantled  weapons  has  the 
potential of aggravating the problems of market  instability for natural uranium 
and  overcapacity  for  enrichment.  The  Commission  and  the  Euratom  Supply 
Agency  are  applying  a  policy  of  diversification  of  sources  of  supply, 
implemented in a flexible way by the exercise of the Agency's right to conclude 
contracts  and  aiming  at  avoiding  overdependence  on  any  single  source  of 

19 

supply. The  Commission  is also exploring whether  possible  solutions can be 
found  in cooperation with the  main states concerned. 

More  recent  initial signs of firming  uranium  prices  may  mean  that the  mining 
industry  will  begin  again  to  make  the  investments  necessary  to  cover  world 
requirements  for  uranium  towards  the  end  of the  century.  There  are  already 
indications that production has increased in Australia, the US and Namibia, and 
has been maintained at a high level in Canada.  However,  this trend has still to 
be confirmed. 

The  Union  supports  cooperation  programmes  for  the  safe  storage  of  fissile 
material  released  by the dismantlement  of nuclear weapons,  its peaceful use 
and  its safe  and  secure transportation. 

Technological  challenges  of nuclear  safety 

The  Council  Resolutions  on  the  Technological  problems  of  nuclear  safety 
(1975,  1992)  referred  to  in  section  II.3  (e)  are  implemented  through  the 
following three complementary  actions : 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

Efforts  to  establish  consensus  amongst  nuclear  plant  operators, 
designers,  manufacturers,  regulators and technical  support  institutions 
on technical  issues which are  key  in operational  and  design safety; 

A concerted effort between Member  States and the Commission for the 
safety  assessment  of important  European  nuclear  plant projects; 

The  establishment  of  equivalence  regarding  safety  for  those  technical 
codes which are significant for the mechanical  integrity of nuclear plant 
components. 

The combination of these actions should contribute towards finding consensus 
on  key  safety  requirements,  thus  avoiding  technical  barriers  to  the  free 
movement  of  goods  and  services.  These  actions  should  also  strengthen  the 
harmonisation  effort  on  technical  codes,  taking  early  account  of  safety 
requirements.  The  Commission's  standing  advisory  expert  groups  on  reactor 
safety, regulators and mechanical codes and standards provide a forum for on 
going communication  and cooperation  between  the  relevant actors. 

Another objective of the  1992  Resolution  is to ensure coherence  between the 
use of best nuclear safety practice in the European Community and the transfer 
of know-how  to Central and  Eastern  European  Countries  and the  Community 
of  Independent  States  through  the  Community's  technical  cooperation  and 
assistance programmes. These programmes are based on a transfer of know-
how, a transfer of the safety culture and, subsequently, a transfer of equipment. 
In  the  period  between  1991  and  1995,  the  European  Union  committed 
555  Mio  Ecu for projects in the CEEC and the CIS. It is the intention to allocate 
similar average annual budgets to this sector over the period 1996-1999. Efforts 

20 

for the effective transfer of European Community best safety practice are made 
through the promotion of contacts between East and West-European partners: 
operators,  designers,  manufacturers, 
technical  support  organisations, 
regulators. Joint expert groups can provide appropriate fora for communication 
and cooperation  on nuclear  safety. 

In a wider  context,  an  important  initial  step  has  been  taken  to  address  the 
safety  problems  worldwide,  by  drawing  up  an  international  convention  on 
nuclear  safety  within the framework  of the  IAEA.  Under  this  convention, the 
contracting  parties  commit themselves to comply with fundamental  principles 
adopted on the basis of a consensus  between world experts, and this can be 
verified. As many States as possible should therefore be encouraged to ratify 
and apply this Convention. 

Spent fuel,  nuclear waste and decommissioning 

Industrial processes exist for nuclear waste treatment, the decommissioning of 
nuclear plants at the end of their life span and the reprocessing of spent fuel. 

There  are different  ways to manage  spent fuel.  One way  is to put  spent fuel 
into retrievable storage disposal. A second way is to reprocess spent fue! rods 
chemically  removing  the  plutonium  and  the  uranium,  to  vitrify  the  resulting 
waste  and to  put the  vitrified waste  into  storage. These  solutions  are  being 
studied  in several countries. Another  possibility  is to bury  unprocessed spent 
fuel into deep permanent  storage facilities. 

Under the first and third approach, all the elements present in such spent fuel 
including plutonium and slightly enriched uranium, are considered as waste, ^n 
the second approach, by recycling the re-usable plutonium and slightly enriched 
or  depleted  uranium,  the  volume  of  high-level  waste  for  final  disposal  is 
reduced. 

Storage and disposal methods are constantly being improved through research 
and demonstration programmes, and these should be pursued systematically. 

in  the  Community 

There  is  some  experience  already 
in  the  field  of 
decommissioning based on a number of specific cases, for instance the nuclear 
power reactors Gundremmingen-A and Greifswald in Germany, Chinon-A and 
St. Laurent-A in France, Windscale AGR and Berkeley in the United Kingdom, 
Vandellos  I  in  Spain  and  the  reprocessing  facilities  AT-1  in  France  and 
Eurochemic in Belgium. However,  so far,  rnost aged power plants have been 
modernized and upgraded, extending the life-span of the investment, and have 
not  yet  been  decommissioned.  Where  new  nuclear  power  plants  are  being 
designed  in  the  European  Union  and  the  USA,  attention  is  being  paid  to 
reducing the cost of their future decomissioning. 

21 

Transport of radioactive materials 

A safety policy is pursued in all Member States with regard to the transport of 
radioactive  materials.  There  have  been  regular  Commission  reports  in 
accordance with a  1992  Council Directive on radioactive waste shipments19. 

An  additional  report  describing  the  provisions  adopted  and  implemented  in 
order  to  ensure  an  appropriate  radiation  protection  for  the  public  and  the 
environment  has  been  adopted  recently  by  the  Commission20.  It  covers the 
transport of radioactive material resulting from all activities, including medicine, 
the latter accounting for most of the packages shipped. 

The report concludes that "packages of radioactive material shipped worldwide 
each  year  have  been  transported  safely"  and  that  "the  excellence  of  these 
results can be put down to the existence of stringent, uniform regulations that 
have  been  rigorously  enforced  for  several  decades,  and  the  adequacy  and 
implementation of which are regularly being reviewed and updated by groups 
of experts".  Such an excellent safety  record cannot,  however,  give cause for 
complacency. 

Use of plutonium 

In France,  Belgium,  Germany  and Switzerland,  plutonium  obtained from the 
reprocessing of irradiated fuels has been and is successfully recycled in light-
water  reactors.  Power  station operators are satisfied with the results21. 

Fast  neutron  reactors  are  theoretically  capable  of  incinerating  plutonium, 
including  weapons-grade  plutonium  made  available  by  the  dismantling  of 
nuclear weapons  -although they have not yet been tested in such a  role, but 
research  is  currently  going  on.  Fast  neutron  reactors  can  also  be  used  to 
reduce the quantities of radioactive waste made up of heavy elements known 
as actinides. 

The challenge facing the nuclear industry is to ensure that plutonium recycling 
is safe and economic. 

19 

21 

Council Directive 92/3/EURATOM of 3 February  1992 on the supervision and control 
of  shipments  of  radioactive  waste  between  Member  States  and  into  and  out  of  the 
Community. 

Communication  to the European Parliament and to the Council  on the safe  transport 
of  radioactive  materials  in the European Union  : COM(96)  11 of  20 March  1996 

Although  the  United  States  operate  about  110  large  power  producing  reactors,  the 
spent fuel is not reprocessed, following a decision to renounce to plutonium-based fuel 
cycle  taken  by  the  Carter  Administration  in  the  1970's.  On  the  orner  hand,  Japan 
intends in the near future to  undertake the recycling  of  plutonium  as a fuel  for their 
nuclear power plants. 

22 

Currently, the cost associated with reprocessing, handling and turning plutonium 
into  MOX  fuel  make  it more  expensive,  on a  purchase  price  basis, than  low-
enriched  uranium  (LEU).  However  there  are  many  other  considerations  that 
determine fuel  choice  in this  sector. 

The  presence  of  plutonium  in  the  civilian  nuclear  fuel  cycle  has  important 
implications for worldwide  non proliferation  policy. 

Future  nuclear  technology,  research  and  development 

In order to face  all new challenges and to answer to public concerns, the role 
of research has been underlined several times by the European Parliament, the 
Council and the  Commission. 

The Euratom  R and D Framework Programme (1994-1998)22 stressed that it is 
necessary to consolidate the nuclear option by showing our ability to control  it 
in all areas of application. This demonstration of a full nuclear safety capability 
will be continued through the following  priority  routes : 

the  development  of a  dynamic  approach to nuclear  safety; 

the joint use  of the  large  European test facilities; 

the creation of a common understanding of the crucial phenomena linked 
to the  nuclear fuel cycle; 

the  development  of  means  to  prevent  and  mitigate  severe  reactor 
accidents; 

the establishment  of the scientific and technical basis for the  long-term 
safety  of radioactive  waste disposal; 

the  pursuit  of the  development  of nuclear  safeguards  techniques; 

the  integration  of  radiological  protection  into  a  global  system  for  the 
protection  of man  and the  environment. 

New  systems  of control and  monitoring,  aspects  related to  severe  accidents, 
work  on  new  safety  features  for  innovative  reactors,  ageing  of  installation, 
safety of the fuel cycle and waste management, as well as nuclear  safeguards 

22  Decision  1110/94/EC of the European Parliament and the Council  of 26  April  1994 
concerning the forth framework  programme for Community  activities in the field  of 
research, technological  development  and demonstration  for the period  1994 to  1998 
(OJL126  of18.05.1994) 

23 

are amongst the activities to be implemented either through indirect actions or 
by the Joint  Research  Centre. 

For the  near  future,  a  new  generation  of reactors  is under  development,  with 
the  clear  objective  of taking on board  the  latest  developments  in the  area  of 
safety.  The  European  Pressurized  Water  Reactor  (EPR),  is one  such reactor 
developed  by  European  industry.  The  aim  is to  design  a  high  power  nuclear 
generating  plant, economically viable able to comply with the  requirements of 
the  safety  authorities.  The  EPR  is  in  the  detailed  design  phase,  with  the 
construction  of a  prototype  expected  in two or three  years time. 

The  development  of fast neutron reactors  (FNR)  is continuing at a slow pace. 
This is due to a number of problems being encountered  in the handful of such 
reactors undergoing tests in France, Japan and Russia.  FNRs may eventually 
be  able  to  mass-produce  electricity  in  Europe  once  the  current  technical 
problems are overcome.  If this proves to be the case their use may offer some 
advantages  in terms of waste treatement and disposal, as noted above in this 
document. 

At present,  thermonuclear fusion  is a  huge technological  project  involving the 
European  Union  and  Switzerland.  It offers  an  important  potential for the very 
long  term  energy  future  but  absorbs  a  large  share  of  the  public  budgets 
devoted  to  Research  and Technological  Development. 

Given  the  extreme  difficulty  of  developing  fusion  technology,  the  European 
Union has also chosen to work in cooperation with major world partners (USA, 
Japan and Russia) under the ITER (International Thermonuclear  Experimental 
Reactor)  Agreement. 

24 

VI. 

CONCLUSION 

The management of nuclear energy, including the issues of spent fuel, waste disposal 
and decommissioning, as well as the other challenges identified for the future, are the 
priority  objectives  of  the  regulatory  authorities,  the  nuclear  industry  and  other 
organisations concerned. 

Use of nuclear energy produces favourable impacts on security of energy supply, fuel 
imports, high technology know-how, qualified jobs, and C02 emissions reductions. On 
the  other  hand,  there  are  problems  related  to  concerns  on  safety,  transport, 
management of waste, decommissioning and non-proliferation. All are areas to which 
much consideration  must be given and which will continue to merit careful attention 
at all times. Further technological development and increased international cooperation 
is also  important. 

Almost forty years after the signing of the Euratom Treaty, the European Community 
has a mature nuclear industry covering the entire fuel cycle with its own technological 
base. Certain Member States have decided not to produce nuclear energy and some 
others  have  decided  to  plan  the  decommissioning  of  their  nuclear  power  plants. 
However, the European Union and some of its Member States may, in the context of 
a future energy supply strategy, review the role of nuclear energy alongside of other 
alternatives. 

Future  discussions  as  the  role  of  nuclear  energy  will  be  affected  by  whether 
circumstances  confirm  an ever  increasing  dependency  of the  Community  on fossil 
fuels  imports to meet future energy supplies. 

Use of nuclear energy for the production of electricity contributes to reducing fossil fuel 
consumption; the  subsequent  reduced  demand  on  the  international  oil  market  has 
made a contribution towards moderating oil and other energy prices. 

The  Commission  believes  that,  in  order  to  provide  a  framework  for  the  continuing 
contribution of nuclear energy to the energy supply, some common principles have to 
be followed.  The  suggestions  outlined  below  take  account  of  the  balance  needed 
between  national  and  Community  responsibilities.  They  are  based on the  Euratom 
Treaty and on the Treaty on the European Union, both of which provide an appropriate 
framework for the Community to act. 

The suggested principles are the following : 

the right to decide to develop or not the peaceful use of nuclear energy belongs 
to each Member State; 

the  choice  made  in  this  regard  by  any  of  the  Member  States  has  to  be 
respected; 

Member  States  having  chosen  to  use  nuclear  energy  need,  in  parallel,  to 
ensure a high degree of nuclear safety, respect non-proliferation requirements 

25. 

as provided for in relevant international agreements, as well as a high level of 
human health protection; 

while  it  is  individual  Member  States  who  are  responsible  for  setting  safety 
standards  and licensing nuclear  installations, and national operators who are 
responsible  for  their  safe  operation,  both  share  the  collective  responsibility 
towards all European citizens for ensuring nuclear  safety. 

If such principles can be the basis of a common approach to these issues, there could 
be benefits from  sharing experience  and developing more cooperation. 

Such principles, if implemented by the Member States, could also offer the framework 
for the nuclear  industry to continue playing an effective  role in the European Union, 
making a valid contribution to the Union's energy supply and its economic welfare. 

A high degree of nuclear safety within the Community alone is not sufficient.  Nuclear 
safety  improvements  in Central  and  Eastern  Europe  and  in  the  New  Independent 
States  are  also  needed,  and  to  achieve  this,  the  combined  efforts  of  the  Member 
States, the  European  Community,  the  partner countries  and the wider  international 
community  are essential. 

«»»»»»»»»»»» 

26 

ANNEXES 

TABLES : 

1. 

Nuclear Programmes in the European Union 

1.1  Nuclear Power Piants - installed and planned capacities « 

Status as of 01.01.1996  . . .. 

1.2  Natural Uranium Production 

1.3  Conversion Capacities 

'. 

1.4 

Enrichment Capacities 

1.5  Uranium Fuel Fabrication Capacities 

1.6  MUX  Fuel Fabrication 

1.7  Reprocessing 

28 

28 

27 

29 

29 

30 

31 

31 

2. 

Share of nuclear in the electricity production 

. .. 

32 

3. 

Costs of electricity  production 

4. 

Lifetime levelised nuclear fuel cycle cost 

ABBREVIATIONS 

33 

34 

35 

27 

1  - NUCLEAR  PROGRAMMES  IN THE EUROPEAN UNION1 

1.1  -  Nuclear  Power  Plants  -  Installed  and  planned  capacities  -  Status  as  of 

01.01.1996 

Connected  to  the  Grid 

Under  Construction 

N°  of  Units 

GWe 

N°  of  Units 

GWe 

Belgium 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Netherlands 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

7 

4 

56 

21 

2 

9 

12 

35 

5,6 

2,3 

58,5 

22,7 

0,5 

7,0 

10,0 

12,9 

| 

EUR  15 

146 

119,5 

1.2  -  Natural Uranium Production (tU/year)J 

-

-

4 

-

-

-

-

-

4 

-

-

5,8 

-

-

-

-

-

5,8 

1995 

2000 

2010 

Belgium 

France 

Germany 

Portugal 

Spain 

40 

1016 

35 

18 

255 

45 

500 

0 

50 

810 

45 

0 

0 

50 

850 

1  Source - Nuclear Energy Data 1996, NEA/OECD 

2  Metric tonnes of uranium per year 

28 

1.3-  Conversion capacities (tU/year)s 

France 
(UF6) 
Comurhex /  Pierrelatte 

UK 
(UFe) 
BNFL / Springfields 

1995 

14 000 

2000 

15 500 

2010 

15 500 

6 000 

6000 

6  000 

1.4 • Enrichment Capacities (10* SWU/year)c 

France 
Eurodif 

Germany 
Urenco 

NL 
iirenco 
m 
Urenco 

i 
] 
\ 

1995 

10 300 

2000 

10 800 

2010 

10 800 

3 450 

4  000 

} 

l 
\ 

j 

•i 

l 
1 

ve worn Qxuts 

1.5  -  Uranium Fuel Fabrication Capacities (t HM/year)4 

Belgium 
FBFC /  Dessel 
LWR 

France 
FBFC /  Romans & Pierrelatte 
LWR 

Germany 
Siemens /  Lingen 
LWR 

Spain 
ENUSA /  Juzbado 
LWR 

Sweden 
ABB Atom / Vasteras 
LWR 

UK 
BNFL /  Springfields 
LWR 

UK 
BNFL /  Springfields 
GCR 

1995 

400 

2000 

400 

2010 

400 

1150 

1150 

1150 

950 

400 

400 

220 

250 

250 

400 

600 

600 

330 

200 

200 

1590 

1550 

260 

4  Tonnes of heavy metal per year 

30 

1.6  - MOX Fuel Fabrication (t HM/year)4 

I 

Belgium 
Dessel 

France 
Cadarache 

France 
Melox, Marcoule 

Germany 
Hanau 

UK 
Sellafield 

I 
[ 

1995 

2000 

2010 

35 

15 

120 

25 

8 

35 

15 

120 

1208 

1207 

70s 

15 

120 

120 

120 

1-7-  Reprocessing (t HM/year)4 

I 
|  Marcoule  (Gas Graphite) 

France 

| 

France 
La Hague (LWR) 

UK 
Sellafield (Magnox + AGR) 

UK 
THORP / Sellafield (LWR) 

1995 

400 

2000 

0 

2010 

0 

1 600 

1 600 

1 600 

1 500 

1 500 

1 500 

223 

633 

678 

4  Tonnes of heavy metal per year 

5  The additional capacity is in process of licensing 

6  Process of licensing has been suspended 

7  Start-up  : 1997/98 

31 

2 - SHARE OF NUCLEAR IN THE ELECTRICITY  PRODUCTION (IN %) 

19908 

1995® 

20008 

Belgium 

Germany 

Spain 

France 

Netherlands 

Finland 

Sweden 

60,8 

27,8 

35,9 

75,5 

4,9 

35,3 

46,7 

United  Kingdom 

20,7 

EUR-15 

USA 

Japan 

Korea  (Rep.) 

Switzerland 

33,6 

19,1 

25,9 

49,1 

42,6 

55,5 

29,6 

34,1 

76,1 

4,9 

29,9 

46,5 

24,9 

34,8 

19,9 

32,2 

36,3 

38,7 

58,7 

26,0 

34,2 

76,0 

4,8 

25,2 

47,6 

23,4 

33,1 

18,6 

31,7 

37,5 

38,1 

8  European Energy to 2020 - A Scenario Approach 

SEC(95) 2283 of  20.12.1995  - for 2000  : conventional  wisdom scenario 

9  Energy  -  Source EUROSTAT - Provisionnai  data (OECD for third countries) 

32 

3 - COSTS OF ELECTRICITY  PRODUCTION  (Ecu/1 OOOkWh) 10 

Investment 

Operation & 
Maintenance 

Fuel 

TOTAL 

Nuclear 

Coal 

Gas 

'Nuclear 

Coal 

Gas 

11  -22 

7 - 15 

4,5-  9 

1 9 - 74 

1 5 - 26 

7 - 17 

5 % p.a. discount rate 

3,7 - 12 

3,7 - 11 

1,8  -  5,2 

4-  8 

1 3 - 26 

1 9 - 42 

2 2 - 40 

2 6 - 74 

2 6 - 56 

10 % p.a. discount rate 

4 - 12 

7 - 11 

2,2 -  5,2 

4,5-  7 

1 3 - 26 

1 9 - 38 

-
3 3 - 60 
33 - 60 

3 0 - 60 

Assumptions  : 

1000 M We  PWR commissioning  in the year 2000 
1991 prices 

10  Projected Costs of  Generating Electricity  - Update 1992 

NEA/OECD, IEA -  1993 

33 

4 - LIFETIME  LEVELISED  NUCLEAR  FUEL CYCLE COST (Ecu/1000 kWh)11 

Reprocessing option 

Direct  Disposal 
option 

Uranium 

Conversion 

Enrichment 

Fuel Fabrication 

Subtotal for front-end 

Transport of spent fuel 

Reprocessing & vitrification 

Waste disposal 

Transport/Storage  of spent fuel 

I  Encapsuiation/Disposal of spent 
j fuel 

I  Subtotal for back-end 

j  Credits  (U + Pu) 

|  Total  cost 

1^22 

0,16 

1^38 

0,74 

3,50 

0,08 

1,235 

0,015 

1,33 

-0,19 

4,64 

Assumptions : 

1000 M We  PWR commissioning in the year 2000 
5 % p.a. discount rate 
1991 prices 

1^22 

0,16 

1,38 

0,74 

3,50 

0,38 

0,18 

0,56 

4,06 

11  The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle 

NEA/OECD -  1994 

34 

ABBREVIATIONS 

Asea Brown Boveri 
Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor 

British Nuclear Fuels pic 

Central and Eastern European Countries 
Community of Independent States 

European Pressurized Water Reactor 

Franco Belge de Fabrication de Combustible 
Fast Neutron Reactor 

Gas Cooled Reactor 

International Atomic Energy Agency 
International Energy Agency 
International Thermonuclear  Experimental Reactor 

Light Water Reactor 

Mixed Oxide Fuel 

Nuclear Energy Agency 
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 
Organisation of Petroleum  Exporting Countries 

Illustrative  Nuclear Program in the Community 

Pressurized Water Reactor 

Separative Work Units 

ABB 
AGR 

BNFL 

CEEC 
as 

FBFC 
FNR 

GCR 

IAEA 
IEA 
ITER 

LWR 

MOX 

NEA 
NPT 

QECD 
QPEC 

PINC 

PWR 

SWU 

THORP 

Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant 

35 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(96) 339  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

12 

Catalogue number  :  CB-CO-96-479-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-09289-4 

Office far Official Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg